You’re a good chap. Further to our face-to-face talks on June 23, and later phone ones wherein you suggested I write to you so you would forward my representations to your superiors, here they are:

Re: Intended UKIP Rally outside the main entrance to the US Embassy in Vauxhall at noon on Saturday, July 14, 2018

My mother and her parents did not flee from our capital city when national socialist bullies and terrorists threatened them with death from the air. They stayed on in Islington throughout (1940-45), eye-witness to houses across the street being taken out by a V-1. My then-teenage mum had actually chosen to return from her great-aunt’s in Melton Mowbray to London to face Hitler’s Blitz. Granddad died of treatable pneumonia a week before the Nazis capitulated, because he believed London’s hospitals were “for our lads”.

The police are, therefore, nuts if they think that I am going to be intimidated by another bunch of socialist thugs.

UKIP’s rally is in support of President Trump’s visit and in support of the United States of America, which has been the United Kingdom’s most faithful and important friend and ally for the last one hundred and one years. Without the USA’s support we would have probably lost World War II, plunging the planet into an unprecedented epoch of darkness. The yanks may often be late doing the right thing, but, like the Commonwealth, at least they’re on our side, which is a lot more than can be said for so many of the rest.

Rally attendees will be a small number of UKIP members, peaceful citizens like me, without criminal records, and many of them elderly. There are to be brief speeches over the course of an hour, acknowledging Britain’s gratefulness to the USA and the special relationship between our countries. A letter of welcome from UKIP London will be handed over to the US Embassy (shut on Saturday, but I have established there will be a member of staff there). It is a stationary event, unconnected to anything else taking place that day.

It is outrageous that there should even be any controversy about this…

If our intentions upset the Met’s bosses, the equally appalling Common Purpose graduate, “Don’t shoot me, I’m not Brazilian” incompetent Dick and US-hating lawyer (just how many Islamic terrorists claim he’s their close friend?), anti-stop-and-search Khan, then frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. That pair has, by commission or omission, encouraged all sorts of anti-Trump and anti-USA goings-on in London, including the childish blimp to be flown over Parliament. Well, I believe in freedom of expression – but this freedom must cut both ways. And it is simply good manners to greet a guest.

If the Met suspects there may be a breach of the peace, it won’t be us breaching it – deal with those others who, on their records, might be.

That the Met even considers threatening decent, law-abiding folk with s12 and/or s14 Public Order Act 1986 sanctions shows how politicised, untrustworthy and unfit-for-purpose the police have become. I do not believe it is lawful to apply either section to stop us; furthermore, the law recognises our right to assemble to peacefully express our warm and friendly feelings. This right can only be overridden in the most extreme of circumstances. No application here.

I attach to this email a PDF (tabulating London’s spiralling crime statistics) that takes a stab at documenting Khan’s brilliant record in his first year as Mayor.

So, instead of attempting to divert focus by harassing those who are peaceful but whose politics disagree with those of the Khan and the Dick, the police should use its resources to reverse this khanage, to prevent and solve murders, stabbings, burglaries, robberies and the crime of our time, the industrial scale, organised rape and sex-slavery of young girls, many of them children, by gangs of paedophiles, the overwhelming majority of whom share a particular racial profile. But in December 2017, Dick had the sheer effrontery to publicly declare such mass grooming had been a part of British society for “centuries”…

To your bosses I say – shame on them! They are beneath contempt.

See you in Vauxhall.

Yours sincerely,

Freddy Vachha
UKIP Chairman – London Region

Ed: Freddy Vachha sent us the attachments below, after publication, with the request to add them to his letter:

Related Posts

41 Comments

Mike Newland
on July 14, 2018 at 9:05 pm

No trouble at all in Whitehall during the Tommy Robinson demonstration. Very good speeches from Batten, Wilders by video, a US congressman, Kasseem, a Swedish MP and many others. Everyone on best behaviour. Evening Standard reports arrests and fighting but this appears to have been in Parliament Square behind the barriers to keep the left away. I did notice purple smoke in the far distance and it appears fireworks were thrown.

Very good speeches at the Embassy from Freddy and others. Warned not to ‘parade’ on leaving under S12 order and no one did. Just walked to the station. Never saw any bad behaviour all day except the crowd spilling onto the road in Trafalgar Square afterwards. Police were good humoured.

Breitbart reports that the US Embassy event was banned. Not true. It went ahead very successfully and no trouble. It was announced that David Kurten was threatened with arrest if he attended implying it was banned hence the misreporting. What grounds to tell David Kurten that?

Our UKIP London rally outside the US Embassy, 33 Nine Elms Lane, London SW11 7US on Saturday 14 July 2018 is GOING AHEAD.

The theme of the rally will be to thank the United States of America and to greet its President. There will be speeches. I estimate the assembly will last for less than 2 hours.

See you there!

The easiest route is from the closest tube/rail station, Vauxhall. Exit the tube and bus station and turn left on to the A3036 heading south-west. It is a one-way street and you’ll be walking for about 300 yards and against the traffic. At the first intersection, turn right on to Nine Elms Lane. The US Embassy is about 500 yards away, on the left. The whole walk takes about 10 minutes.

If you have concerns about legality:

The Police confirmed to me in writing today that they have backed down and have NOT imposed conditions on this event, which is a static assembly.

Note: The Police have banned any march (i.e., procession) from that location, or from near there, whether or not to join up with an unconnected “Free Tommy Robinson” event which starts at Whitehall at 3pm.

If you wish to participate in that event too, which would be your own free choice (I am not suggesting it), you could walk back towards Vauxhall station individually or in small groups. But be careful not to do anything en route which has the hallmark of being a march or procession, as these have been banned per an order under s12 Public Order Act 1986. So, do not brandish or wave banners, flags or the like, or shout slogans, or sing. To do so might get you nicked and fined, acquiring a criminal record. Use your common sense!

As you approach Vauxhall station, you’ll find a bus stop for route 87. Catch this bus (frequency – about every 6 minutes) travelling in the same direction you’ve been walking, and take it to Westminster / Parliament Street (journey time, about 15 minutes). Whitehall is just off Parliament Square and, given the likely size of the “Free TR” rally, it’ll be hard to miss.

Yesterday, you advised that you were in command for demonstrations on Saturday 14th July following the Police Liaison Team’s announcement of intention to restrict UKIP’s gathering under the Public Order Act 1986. I believe you are acting unlawfully having misread the scope of your powers.

Under sections 12 and 14 the “senior police officer” must first “reasonably believe” that it “may result in serious disorder”. It is not an arbitrary or whimsical power. Rather, it allows the police to act in advance rather than react on the day to breaches of the peace etc. But the common law about such matters is not overridden.

May I remind you of the common law on such matters as set out by Lord Selby in Redmond-Bate v DPP where he stated that the critical question for the police “is where the threat is coming from, because it is there that preventive action must be directed.” Thus, preventing or restricting UKIP, a legitimate political party with no history of violent public disorder instead of preventing socialist thugs from attacking us is unlawful.

Lord Selby made it quite clear that the police’s claim in the Redmond case that “Mr. Kealy for the prosecutor submitted that if there are two alternative sources of trouble, a constable can properly take steps against either. This is right, but only if both are threatening violence or behaving in a manner that might provoke violence”.

The key principle of a power to act against either one of two potential protagonists in any potential situation of disorder is that BOTH most be or be inciting violence. Failing that the law directs you to “where the threat is coming from” only.

As you must surely know, it is the left that threatens violence and disorder not UKIP and I respectfully suggest that it is the left’s march that should be banned or restricted. No notice under the Public Order Act is lawfully served on UKIP as there can be no reasonable belief that UKIP may be violent or disorderly. I would remind you of the Lewishan Hustings in the recent by-election in which the left were very threatening but our representative David Kurten AM behaved in a dignified and calm manner in the face of extreme provocation. There can be no doubt at all that it is the left from “where the threat is coming from” and we in UKIP expect you to uphold the law.

Our gathering on Saturday to welcome President Trump is going ahead. We shall not be deterred by left wing thugs nor by unlawful, partisan policing and I invite you to reconsider your decision.

Stout Yeoman,
IANAL.
Perhaps to avoid or sidestep Redmond-Bate v DPP 1999, the police went down the route in s12(1) ROA’86 of not disorder but “disruption .. including conditions as to the route of the procession”.
This was over the phone at 12:30pm on Thursday 10 – as soon as I mentioned the case, and Lord Selby’s test, it all became about “disruption”…
But of course there’s no disruption when it’s a static event (an assembly, not a march), which is why they have dropped their threat (or whatever one chooses to call it) to make an order under s14 for “my” (UKIP London) event.
So, a victory. They backed down, seeing the game was not worth the candle.

As I predicted – for organising this Saturday event, a “thank you” to the United States, welcome to a guest, and/or protesting the attempted police ban under s14 POA86, I’m under *attack* from inside our own party…

… by people who seem to do little that is productive.

For any who don’t get out enough:

KHAN is the name of London’s Lord Mayor. Sadiq Khan.

DICK is the name of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (London’s “Chief Constable”). Cressida Dick.

Calling either lefty by their name, spelled correctly, without insulting adjectives, is not “innuendo” or insult.

It’s common knowledge that Khan’s married with an expected plurality of kids, and Dick lesbian, so there’s no innuendo.

Given the magnitude of their misconduct (below), neither is entitled to the respect afforded by a prefix.

Together, they undermine law and order in London.

Crime’s out of control: stabbings up 31%, youth murder up 70% etc. in Khan’s first year in office.

Worse, because the base year to 31 Oct’16 itself included 175 days of Khan’s misrule (starting 8 May’16), the true Pre- and post-Khan % annual increase in serious crime is even higher.

Khan chose Dick despite her incompetence and politically-correct posturing
– slaughter of the innocent Brazilian (not even for innuendo) followed by cover-up and victim smearing
– claiming in Dec’17 that industrial-scale organised grooming, rape and sex-slavery of young girls, many of them children, by paedophile gangs, was nothing new; was a part of British society for “many centuries”. Outrageous!

Khan blames crime on “Tory cuts”, while he blocked stop-and-search and transferred 900 policemen in London from stopping solving real crime to patrolling the internet for hurt feelings. His non-stop anti-US bleating, endangering our relationship with our ally, and nonsensical suggestions (e.g., that London remains in the EU), make us a laughing stock.

So I will continue to call Khan, Khan and Dick, Dick until I have reliable knowledge of a Deed Poll.

I’d no idea that CD played for the other side as it were, not that I have any issue with that per se but it does explain the elevation of an incompetent to a high position as a result of the PC infection that we see everywhere in public services.

You probably cannot comprehend quite how bad is Commissioner Cressida Dick. This comment by her was made in public, at the London Assembly in December 2017:
“I would not factually describe the grooming gangs as predominantly Asian (Muslim) and their victims as predominantly white, working class non-Muslim – because that would not be politically correct.”
— https://twitter.com/Balinteractive/status/946450181280751617

I have examined the records as closely as is possible given that not that much is in the public domain.

Victims come first.
Victims were preponderantly white. The remainder of young girls were of Sikh and Hindu origin (i.e., ethnically Indian), with a tiny handful of others, including Afro-Caribbean and Chinese. Oddly enough, not a single victim’s name suggested they were Muslim, but this is not a wholly reliable method.

Over 85% of convicted perpetrators I identified were of Muslim heritage. Of these, the vast majority were Muslims of Pakistani heritage.

“Asian” is ridiculously vague and insulting to the majority of people on earth (who are “Asian”) and should be avoided.

As to this Commissioner Dick – her “politically correct” means being incorrect.

Again, people in UKIP trying to score political cheapos about how we have to operate in the khanage of London – they simply don’t have a clue, and are advised to shut up.

JackT
on July 15, 2018 at 1:36 am

Thank you Freddy, I’m far away from the UK just now and don’t see all the news.

The state psychology behind all this is to persuade campaigners that their entire cause depends on how they fare in some corner of the entire spectrum of activity which the police can easily control. It’s a sort of conjurers misdirection where the suggestion is that you might as well give up if your game of wits does not prevail over the state on particular ground of their choosing. The larger picture then gets ignored as intended. Psychologically the state then runs your campaign and dictates what is essential to it. It’s very clever and well thought out.

Let me put this in Agincourt terms. The French had no reason to attack when the English were starving and retreating and the French commanders knew this and opposed one. But the Council persuaded itself that victory meant taking on an unnecessary challenge and that nothing else would do. Strategy was dictated by emotion not reason.

According to Voice of Europe, Wilders has been told that the UK refuses to provide security so he cannot speak at the Tommy rally. Things really have become sinister in this country since May took office. The pettiness is unbelievable like telling Cabinet Ministers to walk home from Chequers. Are we run by teenagers?

I will be there on Saturday at noon, unless an act of god prevents it.

If by any unlawful actions (they seemed not to know about Redmond-Bate v. DPP 1999, but I have educated Superintendent Duffy and his assistant, Leonie, with that this afternoon) the police compel me again to sue them, I shall reluctantly do so.

I look forward to peacefully expressing friendship to the USA, which usually tries to do the right thing, unlike many of our EU “allies” (sic), who do not.

The post-POA’86 case Redmond-Bate v DPP 1999 did not involve such an order (say, under s14) but in it Lord Selby stated:
“The next and critical question for the constable, and in turn for the court, is where the threat is coming from, because it is there that preventive action must be directed.”

I would argue (thanks, Tony Smith, who got there too) that POA’86 allows the police to intervene in advance (rather than after the event) on matters of disorder, etc., but common law (case law) itself on disorder, breach of the peace etc is not changed by it.

The Act requires the police to make a judgement. s14 is not an arbitrary power but must be based on “reasonable belief”. Selby’s principle ought to be relevant in formingthat belief and in directing where “preventative action” should be taken.

If there is an assembly then the police must look to “where the threat is coming from”. It would be manifestly unfair, inequitable, unjust, unreasonable, iniquitous and unlawful to judge UKIP – a law-abiding, disciplined party with no history of violence or incitement thereto – as the source and not Antifa etc who do have such a history.

I would hate to relieve the police of even more of their money (which is OUR money!) for wrongly denying us our human right to peaceful assembly without clear and compelling reason.

Some of us,( I dont know how many), used the White House Contact page on the internet to write to Trump welcoming him and apologising for the appalling balloon insult by our appalling London mayor. And telling him about the banned rally. It would be nice if as many people as possible did this?

On behalf of Preston Branch of the United Kingdom Independence Party, I should like to add our welcome to the UK to those others that I understand you have received via this form. We deeply regret the churlish manner you have been received by the Mayor of London, the Prime Minister, and their supporters. Rest assured that they do not speak for Britain.

Although our branch is remote from London, we are aware that London UKIP has organised a rally of support for your visit at the US Embassy, to take place this coming Saturday, 14 June. We deeply regret that this rally appears to have been prohibited by the Metropolitan Police, under Commissioner Cressida Dick and Mayor Sadiq Khan. Please be assured that the public order reasons adduced for this prohibition are spurious and that the legality of the ban is doubtful. Your friends in Britain are peaceful people.”

But it’s not Khan’s decision whether s12 of the Public Order Act should be invoked. All Luke’s video shows is that to his knowledge s12 (or 14) has not been invoked. Khan refers to peaceful rallies being allowed. So does the Public Order Act in effect.

The issue is whether the “senior police officer” (and no-one else) “reasonably believes” that disorder etc may result. While I share the enthusiasm for no ban yet nothing may be inferred from Khan posturing on telly.

Technically true Stout but the police and Khan will be in contact. Sounds to me like they thought of a ban and threatened one but then decided it would backfire. There may well be other tricks like announcing cancellation or a venue change or delaying stunts. As the scouts say….

I must write to the distinguished Lord Mayor, London’s greatest, to enquire he prefers a supine or prone foetal- or infant- blimp for himself. I’m plumping for prone, as then the fixing cable can serve as an umbilicus.